Talk:Early Quranic manuscripts

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zoedescoteaux. Peer reviewers: Mamasanogo81.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Please Reorganize this page

It's titled "Early Quranic manuscripts" but the first section begins by citing Bukhari? Why? And why are "lost manuscripts" even listed? How about only listing the manuscripts we actually have, in reverse chronological order, i.e. the earliest manuscripts at the top, because thats what determines Order of Importance for the field, in general. And please, leave Bukhari out of it, this page should not be about what is claimed, but what is actually found and verified by academics as the title of the page suggests. Just keep it simple, and the page will grow, easy to follow for the reader and easy to edit for contributors. Thanks & Regards. Code16 (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Tübingen manuscript

Hello, I moved the Tübingen manuscript to the "Kufic" section, as all the references at the time (included in this article) referred to the manuscript as written in Kufic. I have since found another reference in Turkish (http://www.kuramer.org/m/169/167/tubingen-nushasi), which appears to state otherwise. What should be done in such a situation?

Also, to note, Eberhard Karls Universitat Tübingen, where the manuscript gets its name from, lists it as a "Kufisches (that is, "Kufic") Koranfragment", but it also states that it contains verses 17:37, to 36:57.. When it contains also 17:36, and part of 17:35..

I don't know Turkish, so if someone could look at the reference (http://www.kuramer.org/m/169/167/tubingen-nushasi)? (Is it reputable, etc.). Thanks, Jahelistbro (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

So I looked again at the references, and reference #11 does state that it is "erroneously" listed as Kufic by Tübingen. Still, I don't know, what should be done in such a situation? Jahelistbro (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

What should this article include about the manuscripts?

5, of the 6 manuscripts included in this article have articles.. So, for those, what should be included in this article? Jahelistbro (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Dating of animal skins regarding carbon dating

A contention has arisen regarding the dating of parchments and a desire to 'date' the writings according to the animal skins. The confusion or misunderstanding is in understanding that animal skins predate any writing on them (since live animals are not written upon, but only those butchered and their flesh dried and prepared for writing upon them). The "assumption" is that the animals were butchered and prepared at the same time (moments before) the writings appeared on those dated skins. The assumption is misleading, because animal skins can be several years (and decades) old prior to them being written upon. This is the contention I aimed to make clear in a recent edit, and is now fully explained. -- HafizHanif (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• "a desire to 'date' the writings according to the animal skins." Wrong. No one has any desire to do this, nor has anyone attempted to do this. The line you disputed is a line explaining that the dating does NOT correspond to the writing, but rather to the animal skins. Please re-read until you understand what it says. The carbon dating for parchment corresponds to the period during which the animal lived. —wing gundam 04:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• • Thank you for clarifying, I did jump to a false conclusion on that one. My apologies. Thank you for your effort and contribution. -- HafizHanif (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Your comment makes sense, but I'd love see some sort of verification if possible.

I tried to verify that "animal skins can be several years (and decades) old prior to them being written upon" but I couldn't find any sources to confirm this.

I'd also love to see some reason to believe that it isn't safe to assume that animal skin parchments weren't immediately used. Since it seems uncertain but plausible that parchments were generally produced for a pious purpose and not just to sit in storage. Honowofo (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

P.S. Lack of proof for HafizHanif's position doesn't provide proof to the contrary, but I'd love to see proof or examples if possible. Honowofo (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

prominent and repeated use of ibn warraq

A relatively insignificant and partisan figure: not one from serious academia. I'm surprised to see him repeatedly mentioned and quoted in the article. Not appropriate even as (rather, especially as) he's referencing other academics. Why not just quote from those academics directly instead of ibn warraq's opinioned summary of their conclusions?

It's sort of like quoting Dawkins on textual criticism of the Bible. Even if he were to make a valid point with reference to an academic, it would be strange to use the partisan public intellectual's name and words in such an article. 72.141.152.196 (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

An overview table

An overview table at the top with dating of the manuscripts and a short description could be nice. I might do it if/when I get time PolyCreator (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)